Historic Preservation

The library was purposely built away from the center of campus, a break from traditional campus planning, to allow the building to expand. This proved necessary; the library's holdings grew from 649,924 volumes in 1926 to one million volumes in 1935.

Since its establishment in 1867, the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign administration has dedicated itself to provide a superior campus environment to support its educational objectives. The physical development of the Urbana campus has witnessed the construction and acquisition of historically significant architectural, engineering, landscape and archaeological resources. To promote the preservation of its historic resources, the university adopted a Campus Historic Preservation Plan in 1995 advocating the following objectives:

  • To preserve the historic assets of the campus
  • To respect the integrity of historic structures during rehabilitation and/or new construction
  • To use heritage as an inspiration for new projects
  • To seek private funding for the rehabilitation of historic assets
  • To pass historical and architectural heritage on to future generations

The area of study in the campus historic preservation plan encompasses approximately 3,500 acres, divided into four parts:

  • North Campus
  • Central Campus
  • South Campus
  • South Farms

North Campus

The north campus study area, bounded by Green Street, Wright Street, University Avenue, and Lincoln Avenue, is occupied almost entirely by the College of Engineering.

Central Campus

The central campus is defined by Green Street, Lincoln Avenue, Gregory Drive, and Fourth Street.

South Campus

The south campus is bounded by Armory Avenue, the Canadian National tracks, Lincoln Avenue, and St. Mary’s Road. South campus can be thought of as two general areas, with academic uses clustered in the northern area and recreational, housing, and support uses on the periphery.

South Farms

The south farms consist of approximately 2,700 acres bounded by Florida and Kirby Avenues, the Canadian National Railroad, Curtis Road, and Race Street.

The corporate boundary of Urbana and Champaign bisects the study area at Wright Street. University-owned land in Champaign consists primarily of small dispersed parcels, whereas land ownership in Urbana is characterized by larger, consolidated parcels.

Research Park

Located in the southwest sector of campus between First and Neil Streets, St. Mary’s Road, and Hazelwood Drive, Research Park is a campus-owned property awash with startup businesses and corporate research and development operations.

National Historic Preservation Act

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 is an important piece of preservation legislation enacted by the U.S., requiring that the impact of federally funded or permitted projects on historic properties (buildings, archaeological sites, etc.) be subject to periodic evaluation. This vital policy impacts the University of Illinois campus, as it acts as the added incentive needed to ensure that campus’s beauteous buildings remain intact and inhabitable by all students. The university prides itself on the impeccable preservation of many of its historic landmarks, with Altgeld Hall being rated a perfect five stars.


Dennis Craig
Campus Historic Preservation Officer


“In laying the foundations of an institution which is to last through coming ages and to affect all future generations, we have need to plan wisely. We must not expose ourselves needlessly to the inconveniences of changes nor to suspicions of caprice.” — Board of Trustees of the Illinois Industrial University, March 1867

Since receiving its charter as a land-grant institution in 1867, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign has grown steadily in stature and in size. In its first 150 years, the campus included over 650 permanent buildings, totaling 14,944,000 net assignable square feet (NASF) and gross square feet (GSF). Seventeen percent of those structures are over 75 years old, 44 percent are 50-74 years old, and 24 percent are 25-49 years old. Several historic resources are listed in the National Register of Historic Places and as National Historic Landmarks.

Approximately 400 buildings and 36 sites are eligible for listing on the campus preservation index, which includes those structures built before 1970 and sites deemed important to the campus fabric.

A State University in Illinois

Two federal acts provided aid for higher education in the early years of the state: the College Fund and the Seminary Fund. The College Fund contained a percentage of funds from the sale of public lands in Illinois for building roads, and the Seminary Fund was derived from the sale of two townships. The state borrowed from these funds on an annual basis from 1829 until 1857 to cover general expenses. Despite the depletion of these funds, one futile attempt was made to establish a state university in Illinois between 1830 and 1850. Disputes over the location of the state capital, rivalries among sectarian colleges, the priority to fund primary and secondary education, and the general belief that a state university, like the sectarian colleges, would foster the growth of a class of aristocratic young men prevented serious consideration of a state-funded university.

In November 1851 at an agricultural convention in Granville, Illinois, a farmer and former professor of literature from Jacksonville, Illinois, Jonathan Baldwin Turner, outlined a plan to set aside public lands to support a system of industrial universities, particularly agricultural and mechanical colleges, in each state. This was the first of many speeches that Turner would give that advocated the need to pass on the advantages of science to the men engaged in industrial and agricultural pursuits. Until this time, the benefits of higher education were reserved for the professional man who generally studied literature, languages, or philosophy at a classical-sectarian college. Turner’s novel idea roused diverse reactions from farmers, educators, politicians, journalists, and the general public: all took sides in a battle which alternately raged and subsided until July 2, 1862, when the College Land Grant Act was signed by the president from Illinois, Abraham Lincoln. Passed during the darkest period of the Civil War, the College Land Grant Act served as a declaration of confidence in the American union, already considered dissolved by many.

The College Land Grant Act

The College Land Grant Act, also called the Morrill Act, was introduced into Congress in December 1857 by a Vermont senator, Justin S. Morrill, and provided for land grants to each state to endow at least one college where “the leading object shall be, without excluding other scientific and classical studies, and including military tactics, to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts, in order to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions of life.” The states and territories had two years to accept these benefits and obligations from the federal government, at which time the applicants were provided with 30,000 acres of land scrip for each senator or representative in Congress. Illinois accepted the land grant in 1863 and received 480,000 acres of public land with a value of $600,000.

Though the state of Illinois accepted the land grant in 1863, it took four years of political struggle — much of the debate centering on the location of the new institution — for the legislature to create the Illinois Industrial University. After intense lobbying in the state capital by Representative Clark Robinson Griggs of Urbana, the twin cities of Urbana and Champaign were awarded the university. Griggs agreed to dedicate the seminary building from the defunct Urbana-Champaign Institute, surrounded by 10 acres; 405 acres, known as the Busey Farm, located south of Roselawn Cemetery; 400 acres, known as the Griggs farm, nine miles southeast of Urbana; 160 acres north of the cemetery, a tract now bounded on the east by Lincoln Avenue, on the west by Fourth Street, and on the north by a line immediately south of the Foellinger Auditorium; $100,000 in bonds; a $50,000 freight allowance on the Illinois Central Railroad; and $2,000 worth of trees and shrubs to the development of the university.

Establishment of the Illinois Industrial University

The Griggs Bill, signed by Governor Richard J. Oglesby on February 28, 1867, officially established the location of the Illinois Industrial University in Urbana-Champaign and gave authority to the Board of Trustees to formulate plans for the development of the new institution. The original Board of Trustees, appointed by the governor, hired John Milton Gregory as regent to head the new university. These leaders had one year to assess university holdings, prepare courses of study, and hire educators before the enrollment of the first class on March 2, 1868.

The resources with which the new Board of Trustees had to work were not ideal. The only structure on campus, the seminary building of the former Urbana-Champaign Institute, stood on the north end of what was originally called Illinois Field, now the site of the Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology.

Dubbed the “Elephant,” perhaps for its unattractive exterior and huge proportions on an uncompromisingly flat landscape devoid of trees, shrubs, or grass, the seminary building was the largest structure in the twin cities and served a variety of purposes. Its five stories included a kitchen, a dining room, recitation rooms, a power plant, and dormitory rooms for up to 130 students. Though the building (destroyed in 1881) was said to be “ready to receive students” in Champaign County’s bid for the industrial university, the Building and Grounds Committee recommended in its first report an expenditure of $7,850 to modify the exterior and increase the usefulness of the building. In this same report, the committee also recommended that the university acquire the land between the 10-acre tract surrounding the main building and the 160-acre tract beginning just south of the present site of Foellinger Auditorium.

The Board of Trustees realized the need to consolidate land holdings to ensure the university’s orderly growth. With this purchase, the grounds formed an inverted T-shaped area, extending from University Avenue on the north to Mount Hope Cemetery on the south, with an additional 410 acres south of the cemetery. This T-shaped section forms the nucleus of the campus within which a majority of the University of Illinois’s historic buildings are located today.

The early years of the university under Regent John Milton Gregory were difficult because public industrial universities were largely without precedent. Gregory and the Board of Trustees struggled with the major problems of curriculum and funding. Financial problems were acute in the early years since there were few appropriations from the legislature. Over the first 25 years, the university received only slightly more than a total of $750,000 from the state, an amount far too small for the university’s purposes and aspirations. By selling bonds, lowering salaries, and abolishing positions, the university survived this financially dangerous period.

Some amenities, however, were retained. In November 1867 a horticultural committee recommended that an experienced landscape gardener oversee the orderly development of the grounds and that provisions be made for an arboretum of ornamental, forest, and fruit trees. By the time the first students arrived in 1868, the grounds around the main building had been graded and fenced. During that same year, the Board of Trustees set aside land north of Green Street for the proposed arboretum. The grounds continued to be improved through mandatory student labor.

As early as 1870, increasing enrollments led the university to recognize the inadequacies of the original seminary building. The state legislature appropriated $125,000, partially for the construction of a new main hall (later known as University Hall) and the Mechanical Building and Drill Hall in 1871; it would be 20 years before the legislature would approve another appropriation of this magnitude.

The First Plans

The placement of University Hall, the most important building on the campus, would have a significant impact on the location of future university buildings. Regent Gregory suggested that University Hall (demolished in 1938) be situated away from what had been the campus center, on a rise just south of Green Street near the present location of the Illini Union. Designed in the Second Empire style by Chicago architect John Mills Van Osdel, the new University Hall served a wide variety of purposes, much like its predecessor, the “Elephant.”

In 1871, soon after the location of the new main hall had been decided, Harold Hansen, an architecture instructor, designed the first plan of the Illinois Industrial University grounds. Hansen’s plan included only those land holdings directly north and south of Green Street and featured winding walks and drives, Green Street as a wide boulevard, and a central site designated for a new campus structure.

The Chemistry Laboratory, a state-of-the-art facility in 1878, was the next building, located south of Green Street and to the east of University Hall. Like the main building, the laboratory is in the Second Empire style with a raised main floor and a mansard roof. Nathan Clifford Ricker, who became one of the most influential architects in campus history, designed the Chemistry Laboratory. Now known as Harker Hall, the building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Ricker was the first person to receive a degree in architecture in the nation (from the Illinois Industrial University in 1873), and he remained on the campus of his alma mater as a professor of architecture, head of the Department of Architecture, dean of the College of Engineering, and university architect. The Chemistry Laboratory, along with his later works — the Drill Hall, the Natural History Building, the Metal Shop, and Library Hall — were placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1986.

Ricker’s Works on Campus

Throughout Nathan Clifford Ricker’s entire career, he was involved in the development of modern technology and materials, actively incorporating them into his teaching and campus designs. Initially used for military instruction, the Drill Hall (later called Kenney Gym Annex), which was built in 1890 to replace the Mechanical Building and Drill Hall (razed in 1899), contained a large, unified space. Ricker’s progressive use of a wood- and metal-trussed framework left the interior free of support structures. The construction of the eclectically-styled Natural History Building (1892) in the American High Victorian Gothic style brought a change of architecture to the campus. Additions in 1909, 1910, and 1923 complement Ricker’s original design and open onto the quadrangle, which was a campus feature by 1905.

The Metal Shop (1895, Aeronautical Lab B, razed in 1993), a utilitarian structure with a steel-truss support system, was originally used for shop practice. Less than a year later Ricker worked with James McLaren White to design Library Hall (1896), later named Altgeld Hall after John Peter Altgeld, a governor of Illinois. The last and finest of Ricker’s designs, this Richardsonian Romanesque structure remains an important landmark and is the only structure on campus to receive a perfect 5.0 preservation index rating from the Chancellor’s Design Advisory Committee.

Though not designed by Ricker, the Men’s Gymnasium (1901, Kenney Gym) is also included as part of the listing in the National Register of Historic Places. A former student of Ricker, Nelson Strong Spencer designed the Men’s Gymnasium, closely imitating the exterior style of the nearby Drill Hall. Together these buildings exemplify Ricker’s application of the then current architectural engineering techniques.

Laying the Foundation

During the mid-1880s the newly organized and powerful Alumni Association urged the University Board of Trustees and the Illinois General Assembly to change the name of the Illinois Industrial University to one more representative of the university’s functions. Despite resistance from the agricultural community, the institution became the University of Illinois in June 1885. It is, perhaps, significant that the university experienced a notable increase in enrollment after 1885.

The College of Agriculture received a much-needed boost in March 1887 with the approval of the Hatch Act, which provided for an appropriation of $15,000 per annum to each state for the purpose of establishing and maintaining agricultural experiment stations in connection with the colleges founded under the College Land Grant Act of 1862.

Physical evidence of the College of Agriculture’s early development is a continuing reminder of one of the university’s original objectives. Mumford House (1871), the oldest surviving structure on campus, served as a model farm house. Now located in the heart of the south campus, just northeast of Temple Hoyne Buell Hall, the Italianate style house stood well within the limits of the experimental farm grounds at the time of its construction. Northeast of Mumford House are the Morrow Plots, the oldest experimental fields in continuous rotation in the United States, with some plots developed as early as 1876. In recognition of the Morrow Plots’ historical importance, the university constructed the Undergraduate Library underground in 1969 to prevent shading of the nearby plots. The South Farms include barns, silos, outbuildings, and farm houses that also contribute to the university’s collection of historic assets and to the story of scientific progress. For example, the Round Dairy Barns, built between 1902 and 1913, functioned as a model dairy farm and were part of the agricultural experiment station.

Other academic areas were allowed to expand three years after the passage of the Hatch Act, when Congress passed a second Morrill Act (1890), which appropriated for each of the land-grant colleges the sum of $15,000 per year, steadily increasing to an annual sum of $25,000 by 1900. The expenditure of these funds was restricted to agriculture, mechanic arts, the English language, and branches of mathematical, physical, natural, and economic science. The subsidy gave the new regent, Selim H. Peabody, the opportunity to increase the amount of funding to other sciences and the liberal arts as well, marking a decisive turning point in the university’s financial history.

John Peter Altgeld’s election to the governorship in 1892 further improved the university’s situation. The Democratic governor was sympathetic to the university’s instructional needs and helped to secure much-needed appropriations for faculty salaries and buildings. Finally, the World’s Columbian Exposition at Chicago in 1893 provided an excellent opportunity to promote the university as an important institution of higher learning. Impressive exhibits won the university widespread recognition, a cardinal reason for the university’s subsequent increase in enrollments and legislative appropriations over the next several years.

Burrill’s Study of Building Needs

From 1891 to 1894, Acting Regent Thomas J. Burrill was attentive to the institution’s building needs and sensitive to the physical appearance of the campus. In fact, even before assuming the regency, Burrill directed tree plantings along a north-south axial drive extending from the original Institute building on the north to Mumford House on the experimental farm to the south. This formal drive constituted the first important landscape feature on the campus and is still evident today as the boardwalk of the Quad. Early in the Burrill administration, the faculty conducted the first serious study of building needs, as recent high enrollments were causing severe overcrowding of campus facilities. Although the findings outlined an immediate need for an engineering building, a library building, and a museum, only the engineering building, or Engineering Hall, received an appropriation, $160,000, from the state legislature. Like University Hall and several buildings to follow, the location of the new building was the subject of considerable debate.

At this time campus land uses consisted of a military parade ground and athletic field north of Springfield Avenue, an arboretum between Springfield and Green Street, an academic campus south of Green Street, and the experimental farm to the south. Burrill Avenue served as a north-south axis and helped to tie these uses together both visually and functionally. But, Green Street, a principal traffic thoroughfare, emerged as the true functional axis of the campus. Five major buildings stood on campus, including the Drill Hall (Kenney Gym Annex), the Mechanical Building, the original portion of the Natural History Building, the Chemistry Laboratory (Harker Hall), and University Hall, the long-time centerpiece of the campus. The last three structures faced an informal lawn to the north and formed a half oval along the south side of Green Street. While several building sites for Engineering Hall were possible, the majority of the Building and Grounds Committee recommended that the new building be located at the edge of the arboretum facing Green Street, a site which would eventually become the core of the campus of the College of Engineering.

Growing Pains

Problems associated with the substantial growth of the university became increasingly complex during the Draper administration. On August 1, 1894, Andrew S. Draper took office and the next day his title was changed from “regent” to “president.” Enrollments and construction were at an all-time high. The building boom, in fact, ended at the beginning of World War I. Ad hoc decision-making was no longer adequate for managing campus development, and it became apparent that the university required a more systematic method. Recognizing the urgency of the situation, President Draper recommended that the Board of Trustees establish the Office of Superintendent of Buildings and Grounds; the office was duly created in 1895. The present organized state of the campus is due, in part, to Draper’s foresight at a relatively early stage of the university’s physical development.

Although the new administration was making an effort to improve the direction of overall campus growth, the development of the north campus continued to be driven by practicality and necessity. A new power plant and several engineering-related structures were constructed along the east side of Burrill Avenue in proximity to Boneyard Creek, the railroad, and Engineering Hall. These utilitarian structures crowded the area between Burrill Avenue and the eastern boundary of the university’s land holdings, a line running midway between Burrill and Mathews avenues. Expansion to the west was undesirable because of the presence of the arboretum, an original landscape feature of the university, which contained the President’s House (1896) and Green House (1898). The area north of Springfield Avenue, called Illinois Field, was reserved for athletic and military activity. The College of Engineering developed in a disorderly manner until expansion outside of these confines became inevitable.

The Development of Central Campus

While the north campus evolved, the central campus was also beginning to take shape. The Astronomical Observatory (1896) was the first building of permanence located south of University Hall and near the Morrow Plots. An important site in the development of the science of astronomical photoelectric photometry, the observatory was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1986. Three years after the construction of the observatory, the legislature made an appropriation for a new agriculture building (1899, Davenport Hall), which was to be a monumental structure and “the finest of its kind.” The Green Street cluster had been completed with the erection of Library Hall (Altgeld Hall) so the members of the Board of Trustees found themselves again without a determined site. At the suggestion of President Draper, the Neo Classical style building (Davenport Hall) was located to the southeast of University Hall near the orchards and farms. Apparently, Draper was unaware that his suggestion would have a profound effect on all future building sites south of Green Street.

The new Chemistry Laboratory (1902, Noyes Lab), the next major campus building, designed in a Romanesque Revival style, was constructed directly north of the Agriculture Building. Side by side the new Agriculture Building and the Chemistry Laboratory, equally prominent structures, faced a broad lawn that extended to tree-lined Burrill Avenue. The Women’s Building (1905, now the English Building) joined chemistry and agriculture on the south side of University Hall. The renowned architectural firm of McKim, Mead and White designed this Georgian Revival style building. The 1913 “Quad” addition to the English Building was designed by William Carbys Zimmerman in a Beaux-Arts style. Situated to the west of Burrill Avenue, the Women’s Building was the last major campus structure located solely on the basis of need and without a plan for future growth. Near the end of President Draper’s tenure, the Board of Trustees rejected a motion to authorize a survey and report on university buildings and grounds. The next administration, however, solidified vague aspirations for campus development and set the standard for all future planning efforts.

Financial Success

Edmund J. James took up his presidential duties in November 1904, beginning a period of remarkable academic, financial, and physical progress. Under James’ leadership, the University of Illinois attained a position among the nation’s leading educational institutions. Perhaps the administration’s greatest talent lay in its ability to procure funds from the General Assembly, an effort lavishly rewarded by the passing of the Mill-Tax Law in 1911 giving the school a tax of one mill on each dollar of the assessed value of the taxable property of the state. In its first biennial appropriation after the bill’s passage in 1913, the university received $4,500,000, over $1 million more than the legislative appropriation of 1911. The Mill-Tax Law not only provided funds for immediate needs, but more importantly it assured stable financial assistance over the long term, allowing administrators to plan with greater accuracy for future development.

Planning of the campus physical environment began early in the James administration with the authorization of a new auditorium (1905, Foellinger Auditorium). At the suggestion of President James, a commission was appointed to recommend a plan for the location of the monumental structure. Members of the commission included Ricker; James White, professor of architecture; Lorado Taft, sculptor; and Clarence Blackall, who was later selected as architect of the building. Blackall in particular was instrumental in the final recommendation put forth by the commission in 1906. After drawing up preliminary plans, Blackall consulted with landscape architect John Olmsted on what would become the first plan for the growth of the university. The final proposals included the auditorium site at the southern terminus of a large quadrangle and on the center line (extended) of Nevada Street; a new tree-lined avenue on the east side of the quadrangle approximately parallel with Burrill Avenue; a central site on the northern terminus of the quadrangle for a future, monumental structure to replace University Hall; and a gateway to future campus expansion southward into the experimental farms. The Board accepted these proposals, and construction began on the auditorium, designed in the Beaux-Arts Classical style.

The style of the new auditorium and the formality of the Blackall-Olmsted plan were strongly influenced by the City Beautiful movement. Designs from the Ecole des Beaux Arts in Paris and the planning of D.H. Burnham at the World’s Columbian Exposition at Chicago led to a revival of classical planning and architecture. The university’s institutional environment, with monumental structures and expansive grounds, successfully embraces the fundamental elements of the movement.

The Birth of Campus Planning at the University of Illinois

Classical planning and architecture marked a decisive change from previous campus development. The heart of the campus shifted from the informal, oval formation of the Green Street group to a formal rectilinear space featuring vistas, symmetry, and alignments. Architectural styles changed from Romanesque and Second Empire to Neo-Classical and Georgian Revival. The Blackall-Olmsted plan directly influenced campus development for approximately 15 years, providing sites for the Commerce Building (1912, Henry Administration Building), Lincoln Hall (1911), an addition to the Women’s (English) Building, and Smith Memorial (Music) Hall (1920). The basic planning techniques and spatial principles introduced by this plan remain a salient feature of the campus planning tradition at the university.

In sharp contrast to the development of the central campus and plans for the south campus, the north campus continued to follow a pattern of dense utilitarian growth. The arboretum west of Burrill Avenue was preserved while land acquisitions eastward from 1900 to 1920 extended university holdings to Goodwin Avenue, allowing for the construction of several major buildings and a number of minor service structures. The main architects for the engineering campus, university architect James White and state architect W. C. Zimmerman, generally followed the design precedent set by Engineering Hall, and used brick accented by limestone banding, lending a pleasing element of continuity. Located directly east of Engineering Hall, the Physics Building (1908, Metallurgy and Mining Building) is in the Renaissance Revival style. Zimmerman’s Railway Engineering Building (1912, Transportation Building), and White’s Ceramics Engineering Building (1915), located between Mathews and Goodwin Avenues, are also in the Renaissance Revival style.

Campus Growth

Unlike the engineering campus, the south campus provided ample land for monumental buildings and formal landscapes. Planning efforts after 1908 focused on this area, which extended from the new auditorium on the north and gradually expanded south and east into the experimental farms. In anticipation of large appropriations from the legislature, the Board of Trustees appointed an advisory commission in 1909 to evaluate the possibilities for campus growth. The appointees included several influential architects and planners of the university campus: state architect W. C. Zimmerman, credited with the design for the Armory (1914, completed 1926), the Stock Pavilion (1914), the Transportation Building (1912), and the Henry Administration Building (1912), among others; D. H. Burnham, the World’s Columbian Exposition’s director of works; Clarence Blackall, a university alumnus and major contributor to the quadrangle conceptualization; and James White, a professor of architecture, campus supervising architect, and designer of more than 25 major campus buildings during his lifelong service to the university.

The commission’s first problem was to find an appropriate location for a new Armory, which, at the suggestion of White, was located to the west of Wright Street on the south campus. Over the next year, the commission outlined primary land uses, sited several major buildings, and delineated general landscape elements upon which campus plans would be based. The plans called for new military and athletic grounds, a quadrangle for the agricultural college, and a library and museum complex — all to be located on the south campus. Besides the new Armory, the commission established locations for the Stock Pavilion (1914), several horticultural greenhouses (1913), and the planned library (built 1926) (see appendices 11-17). The principles of the Beaux-Arts in Blackall’s 1905 plan carried over to these new plans for the south campus, as exemplified by an extension of a north-south campus axis from Green Street on the north to Pennsylvania Avenue on the south and the creation of two new cross-axes. Upon completion of its duties, the commission dissolved in 1912, leaving the supervising architect White with the comparatively simple task of placing new buildings in their respective groups. Though biennial appropriations from the legislature continued to increase steadily after the passage of the Mill-Tax Law in 1911 until the advent of World War I, the recommendations of the Burnham Campus Plan Commission, as it came to be called, made a gradually deeper impression on the actual development of the south campus between 1920 and 1940.

Military History

The United States’ involvement in World War I brought the physical growth of the campus to a halt between 1917 and 1922. Enrollments were down, as were appropriations. The university was completely engaged in wartime activities during this turbulent period. A military presence was not new to the university, but had always been an integral part of campus life. One objective of the College Land Grant Act of 1862 was the teaching of military tactics, and the first structure erected by the university, the Mechanical Building and Drill Hall, accommodated student military training.

Early maps of university holdings label the area north of the Mechanical Building and Drill Hall as the parade ground, reserved for military exercises. When that building was lost to fire, Professor Ricker designed a new Drill Hall (1890, Kenney Gym Annex) to replace it. Presidents Draper and James gave military affairs a prominent place in university life, resulting in a proportional increase in the number of students involved in military organizations.

By 1912 the University of Illinois had more than 1,500 student cadets on campus and two years later created the first college brigade in the nation. Because of the lack of space, military activities were removed from the north campus to the more expansive grounds of the south campus. The Student Army Training Corps used the new Armory (1914, completed 1926) as a dormitory and cafeteria during World War I. Approximately 10,000 Illini served during the war. Memorial Stadium (1924) honors alumni slain in the war: their names are inscribed on the east and west facade columns. Built from funds donated by alumni and friends, this monumental and imposing structure determined that the western portion of the south campus would be the site of several athletic facilities.

The Campus Plan Commission

With the armistice came a new administration and a rejuvenated interest in campus planning. David Kinley assumed his presidential duties in 1919 at a time of rapidly increasing enrollments, pressing needs, and limited funds. A general sense of uncertainty prevailed on the campus and at the state legislature during this post-war period. The administration, however, was taking every possible step to prepare for growth. In 1920 the Board of Trustees president appointed a Campus Plan Commission to act as an advisory body to the professional architects who prepared campus plans for the commission’s approval — a marked change from the makeup of the 1909 Burnham Campus Plan Commission. Though the commission made no radical changes from previous campus plans, such suggestions as moving the engineering college to the south campus and developing the area surrounding the once far-removed Mount Hope Cemetery revealed the commission’s visionary approach to planning, an outlook which would continue throughout the greatest period of development in the university’s history.

In December 1919 the director of the state Department of Finance requested that each state institution prepare a statement of building needs over the next decade. President Kinley’s request consisted of building projects that the Board of Trustees had approved over the years, including 14 new structures with fixed equipment, 12 substantial building additions, and 16 new residence halls. This building program led Kinley to ask the legislature to appropriate $10,500,000 over the next 10 years, but the governor’s veto of $1,500,000 for buildings during the first biennium hindered the immediate realization of the program. Kinley submitted the same proposal again in 1923 and met with success, owing in large part to the organized and comprehensive nature of the 10-year plan. The university had achieved the financial means to embark upon an extensive building program and to fulfill many of its campus planning goals.

The 1920s: A Decade of Exceptional Growth

Over the years, architectural eclecticism had left the university without a uniform style. Fluctuating appropriations, a lack of a uniform building style, and frequent personnel changes prevented the adoption of a standard architectural style on campus. As buildings were placed closer and closer together, this stylistic diversity became an increasing problem. As the first major structure on the planned quadrangle south of the auditorium, the new agriculture building (1924, Mumford Hall) provided university officials with the opportunity to establish a distinctive and appropriate architectural treatment for future campus structures. After careful deliberation, the university hired architect Charles A. Platt in January 1922 to design this important new building and to reevaluate the campus master plan.

Although McKim, Mead and White were the first to introduce the Georgian Revival style to the campus with the construction of the Women’s Building (1905, English Building), Platt applied this style to a wide variety of building types in a way which he felt expressed the university’s purposes and aspirations. Typically, these simple, yet refined red-brick buildings are three and one-half stories high with visible roof lines, dormers, and chimneys. According to Platt’s plan, the buildings were to be arranged in groups of two, three, and four to form small interior courtyards. These structural masses provided spatial enclosure for the major axial and quadrangular landscape spaces, namely the main quadrangle, the south quad, and the military axis and mall (the parade grounds). Platt designed 11 campus buildings, most of which are in the Georgian Revival style. University architect James White and several subsequent architects adhered to the basic elements of Platt’s design formula, giving the campus, especially the area to the south, a strong sense of cohesiveness and order.

Georgian Revival Style

The new agriculture building, Mumford Hall (1924), the first of Platt’s Georgian structures, provided the eastern boundary of the planned south quad. The long-awaited Library (1926) was constructed at the intersection of Armory Avenue and Wright Street, a site recommended by the Senate Library Committee as early as 1921. The new Commerce Building (1924, David Kinley Hall) was located directly south of the Library and across from the agriculture building. These three structures contribute to today’s south quadrangle, terminated on the north by Foellinger Auditorium and on the south by the Stock Pavilion.

Platt applied the Georgian Revival style not only to these academic structures, but to a variety of other building types as well. The Armory addition was completed in 1926. A year later the McKinley Health Center, Huff Hall (formerly the Men’s Gymnasium), and Evans Hall (a dormitory) were also constructed in the same style. The building of Architecture and Kindred Subjects (1926) was located on the south campus just west of what was then known as the Commerce Building (and presently known as David Kinley Hall) and was the first building to face south on the open mall. James White designed the Materials Testing Laboratory (1929, Talbot Laboratory), the only major building erected on the north campus during Kinley’s 10-year building program. This large, modern Georgian structure conclusively anchored the College of Engineering to the north campus and quelled suggestions that the college move to the south. Funds for three more buildings — the Chemistry Annex, Freer Hall, and the President’s House — had been allocated before the onset of the Depression, which abruptly ended the most prosperous period of development in university history. The Chemistry Annex is designed with a Deco Revival flair while Freer Hall and the President’s House are Georgian Revival.

Depression Years

After the completion of the Chemistry Annex (1930), Freer Hall (1931), and the President’s House (1931), campus construction came to a halt until 1939. Throughout the Depression the university’s operating income declined sharply, leading to faculty and salary cuts, but the campus’ physical condition was relatively stable. A combination of lower enrollments and the products of the Kinley building program left room for growth within modern, well-built structures.

By 1934, however, enrollment figures showed an average yearly gain of 1,000 students, leveling off in 1938 with 18,000 students. The strain on finances and facilities brought about by these enormous enrollment increases was compounded by the demolition of University Hall in 1938. To alleviate the severe shortage of classroom space, the federal government contributed Public Works Administration funds for the construction of Gregory Hall in 1939. Following the Platt and White campus plans of the 1920s, the memorial for the former regent was located directly west of the auditorium and designed in the Georgian style typical of the south campus’ architectural character. The major building site on the north terminus of the quadrangle left open by the destruction of University Hall was filled by an elaborate new building, the Illini Union (completed 1941). Again using funds from the Public Works Administration and supplemented by alumni donations and student subscription, the union was built in the location recommended by Blackall and Olmsted in 1911. Designed by Howard Cheney, the structure completed the quadrangle in the Georgian style reminiscent of the architecture of Colonial Williamsburg.

The 1930s ended with the construction of a third major structure, the Natural Resources Building (1939), located on Pennsylvania Avenue in alignment with the south facade of the Architecture Building. Natural Resources was constructed by the State Department of Registration to house the State Geological and Natural History Surveys. Although the building’s interior follows the modernism of the Art Deco style, the exterior continues the traditional Georgian style of the south campus. The dormitories, once known as the Triad Residence Halls (1940, Clark, Barton and Lundgren), are some of the more architecturally successful built on campus. Taken together, this complex of post-Platt Georgian Revival Buildings makes a strong visual impression at the west edge of campus. After this short building spurt, construction on campus again came to a standstill with the bombing of Pearl Harbor and did not recommence until after the war.

Post-War Building Program

During the post-war period of rapid change, the university faced a sharp increase in enrollments (due in part to the GI Bill), outdated laboratory facilities, insufficient housing facilities, an increase in automobile use and a need for parking spaces, and a tight budget. Campus planning during this era posed challenging problems for university officials. Based on the Platt plan of 1927 (see appendix 20), the 1944 Post-War Building Program recommended campus expansion to the east and west and established site locations for electrical and mechanical engineering buildings (1949, 1950), Animal Sciences (1950), the College of Veterinary Medicine (1952, Environmental and Agricultural Sciences Building), and a home economics building (1955, Bevier Hall). A severe housing shortage led to the construction of a wide variety of both permanent and temporary structures for men (1954, Flagg Hall and Noble Hall), women (1949, Lincoln Avenue Residence Hall), married students, graduate students, and staff.

Except for Lincoln Avenue Residence Hall, which retained the Georgian treatment, styles of this period diverged from the Georgian Revival architectural tradition established by Charles Platt. Generally, these new structures took on a more modern appearance, abandoning steeply pitched roofs and projecting chimneys. Moreover, the building program was no longer dominated by a single architect as had been the case in the past: a number of different firms designed in various styles, reintroducing architectural eclecticism into the campus landscape.

In 1950 the architecture firm of Gregg and Briggs addressed the problems of development and vehicular transportation in the first comprehensive campus study since the Platt era. Their recommendations included the development of the south campus as opposed to costly land acquisitions to the east and west, a campus transit system, and parking lots for any new development. Dealing with general planning issues rather than building specifications, the study left campus officials with the task of choosing sites for future structures on a building-by-building basis.

During the 1960s, the University of Illinois Ten Year Development Plan, 1959-1969, by the firm of Richardson, Severns, Scheeler and Associates restored site planning control to the campus. The 10-year plan was comprehensive in scope, including thorough analyses of directions of growth, space and land needs, housing, and transportation. Development of the plan required extensive land acquisitions to the east (of Mathews Avenue) and west (of Wright Street) of the central campus area. One of the university’s more notable land acquisitions occurred in the late 1960s when the area between Goodwin Avenue and Gregory Street was purchased for the Krannert Center for the Performing Arts (1969). In a return to more formal planning techniques, the building was situated on a centerline axis aligning with California Avenue and Daniels Street. The Assembly Hall (1963), the world’s largest free-span dome structure at the time, had received similar formal treatment with a location on axis with and to the south of Memorial Stadium. Both the Krannert Center for the Performing Arts and the Assembly Hall were designed by the architectural firm of Harrison and Abramovitz.

In the early 1960s hundreds of mature elm trees were lost to an epidemic of Dutch Elm disease, thus dramatically altering the appearance of the campus. The firm of Sasaki Associates, Inc. was hired to reinforce the style of the academic campus with formal landscape plantings and street trees. Although the 1969 plan included no architectural controls and elaborate land acquisition recommendations were never fully realized, the plan was successful at guiding campus development throughout the decade.

Campus development stagnated during the economic recession in the early to mid-1970s. Planning efforts focused on needs analysis rather than building sites and architectural styles. Though most construction took place on peripheral campus areas, the Foreign Language Building (1971) and the Physical Education Intramural Complex (1971, IMPE) penetrated the campus core. Designed by Holabird and Root, the Foreign Language Building completed the central quadrangle by filling the site directly south of Davenport Hall. The Physical Education building, located on axis with Memorial Stadium and the Assembly Hall, accents the role of the south campus in athletics.

New Growth on Old Ground

In 1985, a $40 million donation from Arnold and Mabel Beckman for a multidisciplinary research institute led to a resurgence in campus planning efforts. The site chosen for the new Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology, the northern edge of Illinois Field along University Avenue, was the former site of the university’s original seminary building. The largely undeveloped area north of Springfield Avenue provided an opportunity for a formal quadrangle in alignment with the university’s central axis. Realizing the need for a comprehensive plan, the university once again hired the firm of Sasaki Associates, Inc. to create a long-range plan for the north campus, and later for the central, south, and south farms areas. Although the master plans for the areas south of Green Street propose to maintain or refine historical ideas for development, resulting in the location of the Edward R. Madigan Laboratory (1991, Plant and Animal Biotechnology Laboratory), the north campus plan strives to rectify more than a century of relatively unplanned growth.

The athletic grounds of Illinois Field were transformed into a research complex and a new quad with the construction of Microelectronics Laboratory (1989), an addition to the Digital Computer Laboratory (1990), and the Computer and Systems Research Laboratory (1992). The quad is closed on the north by the Beckman Institute (1988). The demolition of several turn-of-the-century structures (Aeronautical Laboratory B, Electrical Engineering Research Laboratory, Electrical Engineering Annex, Woodshop and Foundry Laboratory, and Filtration Plant) between Springfield Avenue and Green Street has allowed for the creation of a second quadrangle north of the Illini Union on the university’s central axis. This quad is anchored on the north by the Grainger Engineering Library and Information Center (1994).

The Sasaki master plans of 1986, 1989, and 1990, with aesthetic values firmly rooted in university traditions of the past, will thoughtfully lead campus development well into the 21st century.


Because of the long and distinguished history of the university and the heritage we now enjoy, significant components of the campus must be preserved. To emphasize this mandate and give direction to preservation efforts, the university has adopted specific preservation objectives.

  • Preserve the historic assets of the campus.
  • Respect the integrity of historic structures during rehabilitation and/or new construction.
  • Use heritage as an inspiration for new projects.
  • Seek private funding for the rehabilitation of historic assets.
  • Pass historical and architectural heritage on to future generations.

Campus Physical Condition

The Chancellor’s Design Advisory Committee (CDAC) considers 40% of buildings and sites on the University of Illinois campus to be important, significant, or outstanding in terms of architectural or historical significance. Like the campus environment at many other major educational institutions, however, the facilities and building systems are degenerating much faster than they can be maintained. Aging infrastructure, high-maintenance building systems, and tight budgets challenge facility support efforts.

Custodianship of Historic Resources

The campus commitment to preservation is based on five principles:

  • preservation
  • rehabilitation
  • future development
  • funding
  • heritage

Each of these is directly related to the custodianship of campus historic resources and, thus, is an integral part in preservation planning. The university follows practices derived from these principles, the development of which in turn establishes goals for the future. The following principles reflect an effort on the part of the university to ensure consistent and harmonious decision-making, fulfilling the university’s role as custodian of campus historic assets.



Preserve the historic assets of the university.


Follow procedures for decision-making concerning historic assets and develop projects involving historic assets.

The preservation of the university’s historic assets is fundamental to sound custodianship of these resources. Projects involving these structures and open spaces require specific consideration during planning, and especially during “project conceptualization” — a process prescribed in the Official Campus Planning Procedural Documents. The Chancellor’s Design Advisory Committee maintains an inventory of the campus’ historic assets and evaluates them as to significance, expressing that value in the preservation index.



Respect the integrity of historic structures during rehabilitation and/or new construction.


Follow The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings as a guideline and disseminate Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings to campus facility support units, contractors, consultants, and any other party involved in new construction or rehabilitation.

The campus is continuously evolving in response to the changing demands of various academic programs and extracurricular activities. Occasionally, the fulfillment of these demands requires physical alterations to the campus’s historic assets. The intent of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards is to assist the long-term care of a property’s significance by providing guidance prior to treatment historic materials and features. The standards pertain to historic buildings of all materials, construction types, sizes, and occupancy and include the exterior and interior of the buildings. These standards also include related landscape features and the building’s site and environment, as well as attached, adjacent, or related new construction. Using the standards as a guideline, the campus may repair or alter a facility, making possible an efficient contemporary use, while preserving those portions and features of the property that are significant to the facility’s historic, architectural, and cultural values.



Seek private funding for the rehabilitation of the historic assets of the campus.


Annually review and update a list of development opportunities with the associate chancellor for development, who will work with the leadership of the principal campus units to include these opportunities appropriately among their targets for private funding.

Many campus historic assets require maintenance or rehabilitation to retain integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and/or association. Though the preservation of historic assets is important to the campus, these projects compete with other pressing needs. Gifts from alumni and friends allow the campus to undertake projects beyond the means appropriated by the state of Illinois. Donors sympathetic to the preservation of a certain building play a vital role in the campus’ efforts to maintain the historic heritage of the campus environment.

Future Development


Use heritage as an inspiration for new projects.


Include a preservation consultant when a facility project involves a site or building having exceptional historic significance. Develop a clause for University-architect agreements that requires site impact analysis for these projects.

The campus includes a wealth of historically significant structures and open spaces that future architects must consider as they design new buildings or rehabilitate existing buildings. Special attention should be given to new structures or additions planned to adjoin, annex, or be in view of existing historic assets. Scale, proportion, color, texture, and landscaping of new construction should complement existing structures and spaces. A preservation consultant is a necessary component of the building process when a project involves a resource having exceptional historic significance. The purpose of the site impact analysis clause within the University-architect agreement is not to inhibit designs, but rather to encourage designs that respect the integrity of historic structures and open spaces. This development strategy is intended to carry our rich architectural heritage from the past to the present and.


Pertinent Historic Property Management Program Issues

Program Liaisons

Each university or campus unit involved in undertakings that could affect Illinois historic resources shall appoint a liaison for administrative coordination of the Historic Property Management Program. Liaisons will coordinate with the Campus Historic Preservation Officer (CHPO). The CHPO acts as the internal historic preservation consultant for administrative and technical issues regarding compliance and program implementation. The CHPO will brief liaisons on their administrative responsibilities and provide periodic group/individual training for liaisons and pertinent unit personnel.

Identification of Historic Resources

Baseline historic resources are currently identified within the boundaries of a main campus, south farms, Willard Airport and Allerton Related Piatt County holdings. The properties identified within these areas possess an architectural, engineering or landscape historic context associated with the development of UIUC. A number of properties have undergone more in depth historic research. Expanded historic contexts related to these resources, such as academic accomplishment and administrative management, have been developed and taken into account during the evaluation process.

The historic significance and physical integrity of properties has been determined through the combination of opinions by the Chancellor’s Design Advisory Committee Historic Sites Sub-committee and the application of the National Park Service’s National Register of Historic Places Criteria for Evaluation. Historic significance of properties is determined by examination of associated historical contexts, i.e. administration, research, architecture and archaeology. Physical integrity is determined by evaluating exterior/interior features, as well as the setting, of the subject resources.

Guideline: All properties older than 50 years in age are potentially historic.

Illinois properties will be surveyed and evaluated at approximately 45 years in age to determine historic eligibility and facilitate capital planning efficiency.

Undertaking Review Process

All university and campus entities conducting direct or indirect management, planning, construction or related functions that could affect the physical integrity of campus resources are subject to compliance in accordance with the requirements of the Illinois State Agency Historic Resources Preservation Act, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and other environmental legislation related to historic preservation. The concerned university and campus entities are also subject to the historic preservation principles set forth in the UIUC Campus Historic Preservation Plan adopted by the Chancellor’s Capital Review Committee in 1995.

Guideline: Early coordination is essential to establish accurate project budgets and ensure historic building code requirements are met.

To facilitate UIUC compliance and adherence to the above listed legislation and document, the following process will be executed: 

CHPO Review and Comment

The CHPO will review the submitted documentation and notify the sender either:

  • The project meets preservation standards and may proceed
  • The project requires further consultation with the CHPO prior to proceeding
  • The project requires review and comment by Illinois State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)

Guideline: No undertaking may proceed, unless a declared emergency, until review and written comment by the CHPO.

Consultation with the CHPO will identify the need for further documentation or surveys, standards and guidelines to be met and the extent of external administrative process for the undertaking, if required.


The University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign has adopted a thoughtful planning process for responsible custodianship of its historic resources and preservation of its physical heritage.

University and Campus personnel planning or initiating physical work on Illinois properties will notify the CHPO by email of the impending project.

Background and Scope of Activities

Within broad limits prescribed by the institution and the campus administration, the academic and major service units at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign enjoy a significant degree of autonomy in identifying needed facility projects and in prioritizing those projects. Although the actual amount varies widely among the units, each of these organizations has some annual funding for facility modifications or improvements. There are several facility-support units, such as the Facilities & Services Division and the Housing Division, which also plan or undertake facility projects in any given year. Each of these projects may affect campus historic resources — several of which either are on the National Register of Historic Places or are National Historic Landmarks. The university’s activities involving these facilities and others deemed “register-eligible” by the state historic preservation officer are governed by a wide array of state and federal laws and regulations.

Investment and Reinvestment

As of fiscal year 1995, the Urbana campus included more than 15 million square feet of facilities in 200 major buildings on almost 1,400 contiguous acres of land. Including funds from all sources, the fiscal year 1995 campus facilities budgets for academic facilities (which are typical of recent years) for maintenance and repair, remodeling for new functions (alterations and improvements), renewal to reduce the deferred maintenance backlog, and reinvestment to sustain the quality of facilities (variously referred to as renovation and renewal, repair and renovation, etc.) totalled over $7,500,000. Additionally, academic units under the campus organizational umbrella, such as the College of Engineering or the College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences, spent almost $1,000,000 on projects involving existing facilities.

Coordination of this scale of enterprise among more than twenty units having facility budgets and a significant degree of autonomy is not a trivial matter. To achieve an acceptable degree of institutional control, the campus has developed a thorough process for project planning and approval. This process allows continuing effective custodianship of historic resources.

As is the case with most other major institutions of higher education, the campus faces the problems of its campus physical environment declining much faster than it can be regenerated. Aging infrastructure, high-maintenance mechanical systems, and underfunded facility support budgets have caused a steady erosion of the quality of the built environment. Campus facility planners estimate that $15 million per year should be spent on building maintenance to keep campus structures in good condition; the state has allocated less than one-half of that amount each year since 1986. Oftentimes in the past, the university has been forced to take the least expensive approach to general maintenance tasks and minor remodeling at the expense of preserving architectural details. One responsibility of the institution is to perform its mission of teaching, research, and public service in ways that preserve the most significant aspects of its physical heritage. To this end, the period dating from the mid-1980s has been one of unprecedented investment in the university’s historic facilities.

Identifying Historic Resources

The Chancellor’s Design Advisory Committee identifies historic resources, evaluates the importance of those resources, advises on the care of historic facilities and sites, and critiques potential projects that would affect those resources. The CDAC developed a systematic method of rating facilities (see appendices 23 through 28), sites, and interiors on the campus; and the resulting ratings serve as guidance for all project planning. The Illinois Historic Preservation Agency (IHPA) has been a particularly valuable resource in identifying and evaluating these resources.

Master Planning

Successful master planning ensures preservation of the most significant existing facilities which best express the heritage of the campus. This goal has been realized in the university’s current master plans. As the campus develops and the process of master planning continues, the process of weaving the university’s past with its future also continues. Planning updates are performed with the input and review of the CDAC. Significant revisions to the master plan — those that might affect historic resources — are reviewed in consultation with the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency.

Applicable State and Federal Laws

Several Illinois historic preservation laws apply to the university:

The Archaeological and Paleontological Resources Protection Act

This act (effective January 1, 1989) applies only to public lands. The law contains criminal sanctions for anyone who disturbs burial mounds, human remains, shipwrecks, or other archaeological resources on public lands. A violation carries potential penalties as severe as three years imprisonment and $10,000 in fines. The law establishes an administrative system for affected agencies to follow. Under this system any excavations on public property must be authorized by a permit from the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency and must be conducted by a consultant having appropriate professional staff. Excavations must be documented in written reports. The Illinois State Museum is the official curator for any objects removed from public property. On the University of Illinois campus, the Environmental Protection Agency oversees activities on the campus core (north, central and south campuses), while the Office for Project Planning and Facility Management is responsible for the south farms.

The Human Grave Protection Act

The Human Grave Protection Act (effective August 11, 1989), or Public Act 86-151, makes it unlawful for anyone without a permit to knowingly disturb human skeletal remains or a grave marker, including burial mounds. The act applies to any burial on public or private property, but only if the burial is over 100 years old and is not in a registered cemetery. Certain violations are Class Four felonies with potential fines of $10,000 and imprisonment for as long as three years. The bill’s underlying premises are that the use of private property should not be unreasonably bridled and unnecessary disturbance of human burials is generally repulsive to members of our society and should not be permitted.

The Human Skeletal Remains Protection Act

Similar to the Human Grave Protection Act, the Human Skeletal Remains Protection Act (effective August 11, 1989) applies to all unregistered and unmarked graves. This law makes it unlawful for anyone to disturb skeletal remains, artifacts, and grave markers, to sell or exchange human skeletal remains or to allow disturbance of human skeletal remains. The state’s attorney or the attorney general may be requested by the director of the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency to initiate criminal prosecutions or to seek civil damages, injunctive relief, and any other appropriate relief if this act is alleged to have occurred.

The Illinois State Agency Historic Resources Preservation Act

The Illinois State Agency Historic Resources Preservation Act (effective January 1, 1990), often referred to as the “State 106” (also known as Public Act 86-707) law, is modeled after section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. The law applies to all state agencies and requires that they take into account the effect that their activities may have on historic resources. An agency planning a construction project, for example, is required to notify the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency and then take into account any comments made by the agency within a 30 day comment period. The act also provides a number of negotiation and appeal procedures and does not apply to projects already covered by federal law. This law assures that state agencies give consideration to historic resources and minimizes the impact that state projects or activities might have on such resources. The campus must also comply with the National Historic Preservation Act when federal funds are used for a project, though the use of federal funds is rare.

Federal laws which apply to the university include:

The Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979

The Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, commonly referred to as ARPA, provides protection to archeological resources that are at least 100 years of age and are located on public or Indian lands. It establishes a permit application process for excavation on public or Indian lands. In addition, it increases criminal penalties beyond the Antiquities Act of 1906 and makes provision for expanding cooperation between the Secretary of the Interior and archeological organizations, individual archaeologists, and private collectors.

The Archeological Resources Protection Act Amendments of 1988

The Archeological Resources Protection Act Amendments of 1988 strengthen the original act and require federal agencies to develop public awareness programs and prepare plans and schedules for surveying land under their jurisdiction.

The Antiquities Act of 1906

The Antiquities Act of 1906 provides for the protection of all historic and prehistoric ruins or monuments on federal lands. It prohibits any excavation or destruction of such antiquities without permission of the secretary of the department having jurisdiction over these resources. The act authorizes the Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, and War (Defense) to give permission for excavation to reputable institutions for increasing knowledge and for permanent preservation in public museums. It also authorizes the President to declare areas of public lands as national monuments and to reserve lands for that purpose.

The Historic Sites Act of 1935

The preservation for public use of historic sites, buildings, and objects was declared a national policy by the Historic Sites Act of 1935. It led to the establishment of the Historic Sites Survey, Historic American Buildings Survey, and the Historic American Engineering Record by giving the Secretary of the Interior authority to make historic surveys, to secure and preserve data on historic sites, and to acquire and preserve archaeological and historic sites. The National Historic Landmarks program and its advisory board were also established under this act to designate properties having exceptional value as commemorating or illustrating the history of the United States.

The National Environmental Policy Act

Federal agencies are required by the National Environmental Policy Act to prepare an environmental impact statement for every major federal action that affects the quality of the human environment. The environment is defined to include cultural as well as natural resources.

Executive Order 11593: Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment

Federal agencies are directed by this Executive Order, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, to take a leadership role in preservation in two particular ways. First, for all property under federal jurisdiction or control, the agencies must survey and nominate all significant historic properties to the National Register. These historic properties also must be maintained and preserved by the agency. Second, for every action funded, licensed, or executed by the federal government the agency involved must ask the Secretary of the Interior to determine if any property in the environmental impact area is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. If the federal action will substantially alter or destroy a historic property, the agency must allow the advisory council to comment on such undertakings; nationally significant properties must be recorded by the Historic American Buildings Survey or the Historic American Engineering Record.

The Archaeological and Historical Preservation Act of 1974

The Archaeological and Historical Preservation Act of 1974 calls for the preservation of historic and archaeological materials and data that otherwise would be lost as a result of federal construction or federally licensed or aided activities. Data recovery or in situ preservation are available to the Secretary of the Interior.

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA; Public Law 89-665; 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) is legislation intended to preserve historical and archaeological sites in the United States. The act created the National Register of Historic Places, the list of National Historic Landmarks, and the State Historic Preservation Offices.

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990, commonly referred to as NAGPRA, describes the rights of Native Americans and requires federal agencies and museums receiving federal funds to inventory holdings of remains and objects of Native Americans to reach agreements regarding the disposition of these items.

Acquisition, Disposal, and Demolition

In conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings and Illinois law in accord with Public Act 86-707, review by the IHPA is required prior to the execution of any contract involving historic resources. In comformance with the Historic American Building Survey, appropriate levels of architectural documentation/reports and/or archaeological surveys are made available to IHPA, guiding its assessment of the undertaking’s impact on the historic resource. In turn, IHPA responds with a determination of no effect, additional information required, or no adverse effect; or the IHPA must draft a memorandum of agreement outlining alternatives that would eliminate, minimize, or mitigate the possible adverse effect on the historic resource. The campus historic preservation officer also introduces these types of projects to the CDAC on a case-by-case basis, seeking input and guidance from this group of preservation specialists.

Facility Construction, Major Remodeling, and Major Site Improvements

Proposed construction projects and major site improvements involving historic resources are reviewed by the CDAC at least twice during planning. Initially, projects are brought before the CDAC at the very earliest planning stages — frequently at the predrawing, or the “idea,” stage of development. At the university, that segment of the project planning process is called “project conceptualization”, and it occurs after the need for the project is identified, but before all the specific requirements for a successful physical solution are prescribed. This committee review can

  • present a critique of the intent of the project and can prevent further consideration of an idea that is basically flawed;
  • provide an opportunity to influence the scope of a project that could involve a historic resource;
  • provide an opportunity to raise historic concerns to other project stakeholders; and/or
  • present the opportunity for the committee to forward concerns, cautions, or conditions that must be considered as the project planning continues. Frequently, this information is included as requirements in the project program statement.

If the proposed project advances through feasibility testing to the design segment of the process, the schematic design for the project is also reviewed by the committee. This critique of the direction of the design solution comes so early in the design process that alterations can easily be made. For state-funded projects, the Capital Development Board is typically the project planning agent. By mutual agreement between the two state entities, the Capital Development Board consults with the IHPA at critical junctures in the project planning process.

Alterations and Improvement

The campus is uniquely organized to ensure adequate review of proposed projects. Plans for alterations and improvement to campus academic facilities must be endorsed by the Office for Project Planning and Facility Management and approved by the Chancellor’s Capital Review Committee (CCRC). Thus, plans for these activities on all historically significant structures, whether they be state-funded or auxiliary enterprises, must also be endorsed and approved by that office and committee. The director of the Office for Project Planning and Facility Management is the campus historic preservation officer, is a member of the CCRC, and holds an ex officio position on the CDAC. Projects that could have a deleterious effect on a resource are brought to the CDAC for consultation and advice.

Maintenance, Renovation (or Renewal), and Repair

Maintenance and repair activities typically have little potential for negative effect on the resource, but renovation — as an activity designed specifically to reduce the backlog of deferred maintenance or to alter the functionality of a facility — has the potential for abuse of the resource. Activities supported by funding to correct deterioration of historic resources are planned in cooperation with the campus historic preservation officer (or deputy). Activities that would result in significant visual consequence, such as re-pointing or window replacement, are planned in cooperation with the campus historic preservation officer and are reviewed by the IHPA. Depending on the nature of the project, the campus historic preservation officer may elect to seek the counsel of the CDAC.


University/Campus organizations with potential Historic Preservation Statutory Compliance responsibilities/roles

University of Illinois Systems

University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Chancellor’s Office

  1. Office of Development
  2. Department of Intercollegiate Athletics
  3. Provost/Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs
    1. Armed Forces
    2. Carle Illinois College of Medicine
    3. College of ACES
    4. College of Applied Life Studies
    5. College of Education
    6. College of Engineering
    7. College of Fine and Applied Arts
    8. College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
    9. College of Media
    10. College of Veterinary Medicine
    11. Fire Services Institute
    12. Gies College of Business
    13. Graduate College
    14. Office of Facility Management and Scheduling
    15. Police Training Institute
    16. School of Labor and Employment Relations
    17. School of Information Sciences
    18. School of Social Work
    19. University Library
  4. Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs
    1. State Farm Center
    2. Campus Recreation
    3. Housing
    4. Illini Union
    5. McKinley Health Center
    6. Division of Intercollegiate Athletics
  5. Vice Chancellor for Public Engagement and Institutional Relations
    1. Local Community Resources
    2. Office of Continuing Education
    3. Technology Commercialization
    4. University Extension
    5. Willard Airport
  6. Facilities & Services
    1. Capital Programs
    2. Customer Relations & Communications
    3. Engineering & Construction Services
    4. Transportation & Building Services
    5. Building Maintenance & Grounds
    6. Safety and Compliance
    7. Sustainability
    8. Utilities & Energy Services

Appendix 6 – Chancellor’s Design Advisory Committee


  • Establish appropriate general guidance for the orderly development and presentation of the campus.
  • Provide input to proponents/designers of proposed projects contributing to development of the campus.
  • Provide reaction to specific design/development solutions proposed by contracted professionals and in-house staff.

In the past, the Campus Committee on Historic Sites, the Architectural Design Review Committee, and the Committee on Art in Public Spaces have responded to separate charges, agendas, and frequency of meetings. Through consultation with representatives of each of these committees, the campus believes it would be in the best interests of efficiency and effectiveness if these committees act together as the Chancellor’s Design Advisory Committee (CDAC). Recognizing that some special-interest topics and continuing initiatives may involve issues of more limited interest, the three committees remain intact as subcommittees of the CDAC.

  • Subcommittee on Design
  • Subcommittee on Historic Sites
  • Subcommittee on Art in Public Spaces


  • Faculty appointees
  • Student representatives
  • Deputy Campus Historic Preservation Officer (staff)
  • Campus Historic Preservation Officer (ex officio)
  • Director, Office for Capital Programs (ex officio)


In addition to identifying historic campus resources and rating these for their significance, the committee is involved in construction projects which would affect those resources.

The Subcommittee on Historic Sites advises the committee on matters relating to the preservation, utilization, adaptive use, rehabilitation, and renovation of significant campus sites, buildings, and open spaces. The subcommittee also provides advice relative to the impact of a facility of potentially historic value resulting from renovation of new construction. Typically, a project involving a significant structure will reach the committee twice: once, during concept formation so that guidance concerning care of the resource will reach the designers before they begin their work, and again at either the end of schematic design or design development for feedback to the designer before the project planning progresses.

Appendix 8 – Term of Office of University Regents and University Presidents

University Regents

  • 1868 – 1880 John Milton Gregory
  • 1880 – 1891 Selim Hobart Peabody
  • 1891 – 1894 Thomas Jonathan Burrill

University Presidents

  • 1894 – 1904 Andrew Sloan Draper*
  • 1904 – 1920 Edmund Janes James
  • 1920 – 1930 David Kinley
  • 1930 – 1933 Harry Woodburn Chase
  • 1934 – 1934 Arthur Hill Daniels
  • 1934 – 1946 Arthur Cutts Willard
  • 1946 – 1953 George Dinsmore Stoddard
  • 1953 – 1955 Lloyd Morey
  • 1955 – 1971 David Dodds Henry
  • 1971 – 1979 John E. Corbally, Jr.
  • 1979 – 1995 Stanley O. Ikenberry
  • 1995 – 2005 James J. Stukel
  • 2005 – 2010 B. Joseph White
  • 2010 – 2012 Michael J. Hogan
  • 2012 – present Robert A. Easter

*Regent title changed to President by the Board of Trustees on second day of term.

Appendix 19 – Campus Building Designed by Charles Platt

Historic NameCurrent Name
AgricultureMumford Hall
CommerceDavid Kinley Hall
West Women’s Residence HallEvans
Men’s GymnasiumGeorge Huff Hall
McKinley University HospitalMcKinley Health Center
Dairy ManufacturingAgricultural BioProcess Laboratory
Armory – AdditionArmory
Architecture and Kindred SubjectsArchitecture Building
Women’s GymnasiumLouise Freer Hall
President’s HousePresident’s House

Appendix 23 – Evaluation of Campus Properties

  • First Importance: “Outstanding” (5) in architectural or historical significance, worthy of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Retain in continued use. Should be treated with respect and in strict compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines. Interpretive efforts are warranted.
  • Second Importance: “Significant” (4) in terms of architecture, design, history, or associations, in most cases suitable for National Register or district listing. Treatment requires careful consideration consistent with the Secretary’s Standards and Guidelines. Appropriate for marking.
  • Third Importance: “Important” (3) in the fabric of the campus but not necessarily in historic or design terms. Includes properties necessary to complete the integrity of a group or area. Any treatment, including adaptive use, should be carefully handled consistent with the Secretary’s Standards and Guidelines and Campus Planning Procedure Documents/Guidelines. Alteration or elimination of properties in any of the first three categories must be thoroughly documented.
  • Fourth Importance: “Neutral” (2) in terms of historical or design interest, but realistically permanent structures, the maintenance or treatment of which requires consideration of impact on surroundings.
  • Least Importance: “Bad” (1) Unsuited for continued use because of negative impact on functions or surroundings. Suitable for removal, subject to verification of absence of heritage values.

Appendix 26 – Preservation Index Scores


The preservation index score is based on a 5.00 scale. See Appendix 23 – Evaluation of Campus Properties for a description of categories.

Preservation Building NameIndex Score
Altgeld Hall5.0
Foellinger Auditorium4.84
Assembly Hall4.68
Illini Union4.67
Lincoln Hall4.46
Smith Memorial Hall4.45
Architecture Building Gateways4.44
Engineering Hall4.43
Armory Building4.42
Natural History Building4.39
Architecture Building4.30
Round Dairy Barns4.27
English Building4.25
Mumford Hall4.25
Memorial Stadium4.21
Metallurgy and Mining Building4.15
Mumford House4.14
Wm. Albert Noyes Laboratory4.08
Davenport Hall4.07
George Huff Hall4.03
Surveying Building4.01
Henry Administration Building3.98
Kenney Gym Annex3.96
Harker Hall3.93
President’s House3.93
Gregory Hall3.90
H. E. Kenney Gymnasium3.85
McKinley Hospital3.81
University High School3.80
Freer Gymnasium3.78
Busey Hall3.78
Natural Resources Building3.72
Evans Hall3.71
Ceramics Building3.69
Astronomical Observatory3.64
Materials Testing Laboratory3.62
Halfway House/Bus Shelter3.56
Robert Allerton Farmhouse #13.44
Education Building3.43
Colonel Wolfe School3.38
Horse Barn3.35
Victor E. Shelford Vivarium3.34
North Greenhouse3.29
Beef Farm3.22
Swine Barn3.22
Sheep Barn3.21
Transportation Building3.18
Chemistry Annex3.16
Dairy Barn (North)3.14
Dairy Barn (South)3.13
Lincoln Avenue Residence Hall3.08
McKinley Hospital Health Service3.01
Coble Hall3.01
Aeronautical Lab B3.00
Illini Hall2.99
Krannert Art Museum2.94
Lorado Taft House2.94
Adams Laboratory2.93
Ornamental Horticulture Bldg. & Greenhouse2.92
Forest Science Laboratory2.92
Woodshop & Foundry Laboratory2.91
Dairy Herdsman’s Cottage2.77
Swine Shed2.46
Aeronautical Engineering Lab A2.07
Botany Annex & Greenhouse2.07
Survey Research Laboratory2.06
909 S. Sixth, C2.00
Animal Husb. Poultry Res. & Gar.2.00
Poultry Research Farm2.00
1204 W. Nevada, Urbana2.00
1009 W. Nevada, Urbana2.00
Fire Station1.93
Long Monitor-Roofed Barn1.92
909 W. Nevada, Urbana1.90
1205 W. Nevada, Urbana1.84
Agriculture Bioprocess Lab1.82
1001 W. Nevada, Urbana1.81
907 W. Nevada, Urbana1.81
University High School Gym1.79
911 S. Sixth, Champaign1.75
512 E. Chalmers, Champaign1.75
Davenport House1.75
1202 W. Green, Urbana1.75
Beef Cattle Herder House1.71
Survey Research Laboratory1.69
1207 W. Oregon, Urbana1.67
Ceramic Kiln Laboratory1.66
Institute for Environmental Studies1.64
Fire Station Garage1.64
510 E. Chalmers1.62
College of Education Curric. Lab1.57
1205 1/2 W. Nevada1.56
810 S.Sixth, Champaign1.51
General Curriculum Center1.50
Educational Proj. & Guidance Bldg1.41
Nuclear Radiation Lab1.39
Electrical Engineering Annex1.36
Nuclear Engineering Laboratory1.36
South Garage/Car Pool (old)1.33
Feed Storage Plant (Beef Farm)1.33
Radio Transmitter Station1.32
1210 W. California, Urbana1.32
205 S. Goodwin, Urbana1.28
Alpha House1.21
Highway Mtls. Research Lab1.19
911 W. High Street, Urbana1.19
Fine Arts/Commerce Annex1.14
Television Building1.11
Highway Materials Test Lab1.10
Structural Warehouse1.10
Env. Research Annex1.08
Poultry Res. Laying Facility1.00
Cage Layer House1.00
1110 W. Main Street, Urbana1.00
HP Gas Reg. & Reducing Stn.1.00
Dog Metabolism Unit1.00
Sheet Metal Poultry Shed1.00
Brooding and Rearing House1.00
Animal Genetics Building1.00
Poultry Research Farm1.00
Warehouse #11.00
Hydro. Eng. Lab #11.00
Pomology Greenhouse1.00
University Police Building1.00
57 E. Armory, Champaign/////
59 E. Armory, Champaign/////
501 S. Wright, Champaign/////
602 S. Sixth Street, Champaign
605 S. Goodwin, Urbana/////
608 S. Mathews, Urbana/////
704 S. Gregory, Urbana/////
1008 ½ W. Green
1116 W. Illinois Street, Urbana/////
1201 W. California, Urbana/////
1202 W. California, Urbana/////
1203 W. California, Urbana/////
1203 W. Oregon, Urbana/////
1204 W. Oregon, Urbana/////
1204 W. Springfield, Urbana/////
1205 W. California, Urbana/////
1205 W. Oregon, Urbana/////
Aeronomy Lab
Agricultural Eng. Research Lab
Agricultural Eng. Science
Agricultural Service Building
Agriculture Services Warehouse
Animal Sciences Laboratory
Art & Design Building
Astronomy Building
Babcock Hall
Bevier Hall
Blaisdell Hall
Building Research Council
Building Research Council Laboratory
Burnsides Research Laboratory
Burrill Hall
Carr Hall
Central Trash Depot
Child Development Laboratory
Commerce & Business Administration
Computing Appl. Building
Computing Services Office/////
Coord.Science & Aerospace Lab
Daniels Hall
Digital Computer Laboratory
Distribution Center #4
Electrical Engineering Building
Entomology Laboratory
Field House – Illini Field
Flagg Hall
Food Service Building – Florida Avenue Residence Hall
Food Service Building – Illinois Street Residence Hall
Foreign Languages Building
Forestry Greenhouse
Fuel Oil Storage Tanks
Gaseous Electronics Building
Golf Course Building
Harding Band Building
Horticulture Field Lab Greenhouse
Horticulture Field Lab Steel Building
Housing Food Store
Hydrosystems Laboratory-Civil
Illini Grove Shelter
Intramural Physical Education Bldg.
David Kinley Hall
Krannert Ctr. for the Perf. Arts
Labor and Industrial Relations
Law Building
Levis Faculty Center
Library Air Conditioning Center
Loomis Laboratory of Physics
Lounge Building – Illinois Street Residence Hall
Lounge Building – Pensylvania Avenue Residence Hall
Mailing Center
Materials Research Laboratory
Meat Science Laboratory
Mechanical Eng. Building
Medical Sciences Building
Morrill Hall
Music Building
Nathan M. Newmark Laboratory
Noble Hall
Nuclear Physics Laboratory
Nuclear Reactor Laboratory
Oglesby Hall – Florida Avenue Residence Hall
Orchard Downs Sewage Lift Station
Parking Garages (6th/John, 5th/Daniel)
Personnel Services Building
Physical Education Storage Building
Physical Plant Grounds Storage Bldg
Physical Plant Services Building
Physiology Research Laboratory
Post Office & Snack Bar
Psychology Building
Sherman Hall
Speech & Hearing Clinic
Stock Pavilion
Student Services Building
Student/Staff Air Conditioning Center
Student-Staff Apartments Green & Goodwin
Swanlund Admin. Building
Taft Hall
Television Annex
Townsend Hall – Illinois Street Residence Hall
Trelease Hall – Florida Avenue Residence Hall
Turner Hall
Turner Hall Greenhouse
Undergraduate Library
USDA Nematology Greenhouse
University Film Center
University Press
University Press Annex/////
Van Doren Hall
Veterinary Medicine Basic Science Bldg.
Veterinary Medicine Boiler Plant
Veterinary Medicine Feed Storage
Veterinary Medicine Surgery & Obstetrics Lab
Vocational Agricultural Building
Volatile Storeroom
Wardall Hall – Illinois Street Residence Hall


The preservation index score is based on a 5.00 scale.

Site NameIndex Score
Quadrangle/South Lawn4.96
Alma Mater Statue4.83
The Broadwalk on Quad4.67
Morrow Plots4.59
President’s House Gardens4.25
Illini Grove4.18
Burrill Avenue North4.13
South Quadrangle4.04
Burr Oak at Natural History Building3.96
Centennial Court3.89
President’s Walk3.81
Commerce/Architecture Courtyard3.81
Sasaki Planting Scheme3.75
Diana Fountain and Surrounding Plaza3.70
Worthy Grove3.70
Military Axis3.59
Green Street Axis3.53
Mumford House Plantings3.50
President Gregory’s Grave3.48
Sycamore Tree3.43
Bald Cypress Trees3.33
1909 Senior Class Memorial Fountain3.32
Kentucky Coffee Tree3.31
Austrian Pines3.25
Japanese Memorial Grove3.21
Lincoln Hall Theatre Court2.95
WWI Memorial Trees at Armory2.75
Administration Building West Entrance2.67
Alumni Association Memorial Seating2.54
E. J. James Memorial Courtyard2.49
Twin Burr Oaks2.42
Mother’s Association Anniversary Plaza2.41
Boneyard Creek2.22
Limber Pine at Stock Pavilion2.20
Robert Heath Memorial1.83
University Arboretum1.54


The preservation index score is based on a 5.00 scale.

Building NameIndex Score
Altgeld Hall4.90
Smith Memorial Hall4.90
Lincoln Hall4.58
Ceramics Building4.50
Engineering Hall4.00
Stock Pavilion3.72
Natural History Building3.71
Transportation Building3.28
Mumford Hall3.19
Davenport Hall3.13
Henry Administration Building3.16
Noyes Lab. of Chemistry2.94
David Kinley Hall2.76
Gregory Hall2.68
Metallurgy & Mining2.50

Project Planning and Delivery Process


The university has adopted a project planning and facility delivery process to help ensure that its economic and capital priorities are preserved, to allow the development of a capital proposal, to receive the appropriate reviews, and to enable adequate coordination of offices which have a physical planning role for the campus. The major steps in the process and the participants in that process are listed below.


  • Proponents/Users
  • Office of Project Planning and Facility Management
  • Facilities & Services
  • Division of Environmental Health and Safety
  • Campus Information Technologies and Educational Services (CITES)
  • Office of Real Estate Planning and Services
  • Office of Safety and Risk Management
  • Campus support services
  • Division of Campus Parking
  • Professional technical consultants
  • Chancellor’s Design Advisory Committee

Phases of the Process

Project proposal

The proponent, with the assistance of campus facility support offices, develops a proposal for a major building addition or a new facility.


The project is conceived, the need verified, and the scope defined. The site is tentatively identified and the budgetary requirements estimated.  


The implementation of the project is tested. Is it salable? Are there internal or external constraints to implementation? Are there obstacles to implementation and, if so, can they be overcome?

Program development

The functional requirements of the project are defined, in detail, in a program statement.

Program verification

Can the project as conceived and as defined by the program statement be executed for the funds available on the site selected?

Schematic design

Produce one or more conceptual design solutions to meet the project’s program and budget requirements.

Design development

Refine the preferred solution in greater detail, defining the appearance and materials being proposed. Refine the cost estimate and the proposed project schedule.

Construction documents

Based on the approved design development documents, the construction documents will be prepared in sufficient detail to successfully bid and construct the project. Refine cost estimate and project schedule.
BiddingAdvertise and receive qualified bids for the work described in the construction documents. Recommend award to the lowest qualified bidder.


The successful bidder will construct the project per the construction agreement and all subsequent change orders.


The building is tested. Mechanical systems are balanced and the security system is tested. Mechanical trades are trained in the operation and maintenance of the facility and all its systems.


The users move in.

Post-occupancy evaluation

After a meaningful period of occupancy has passed (perhaps one year), the users are queried as to the appropriateness of the planning standards, the success of specific space requirements, reaction to the intent of the building systems, etc. Resultant information is used to adjust campus planning, design, and construction standards.


Related Providers

Architectural Review Committee (ARC)

The Architectural Review Committee (ARC) is involved any time the physical fabric of the campus is considered for alteration. Its mission is to create, review, and maintain comfortable, healthy, safe, and sustainable facilities in support of the academic mission.

Richard D. and Anne Marie Irwin Doctoral Study Hall.

Landscape Architect

The University Landscape Architect oversees site development on the main campus and auxiliaries. All changes to the fabric of campus support the mission of our institution, balancing the needs of aesthetics for staff and students, attracting prospective students and donors, education uses, and sustainability.

The Gelvin Gardens provide an oasis of natural beauty gracing the entrance of the Krannert Art Museum. The gardens, originally designed by landscape architecture professor emeritus Terry Harkness, are maintained by KAM Council Gelvin Gardens volunteers led by Master Gardener Gloria Rainer. The space offers a peaceful place to enjoy flowers, fauna and sculpture work. The gardens are found at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.

Capital Programs

Capital Programs directs the programming, design, and construction of capital projects with more than a $250,000 total project budget at the University of Illinois.

Capital Programs

Related News